Friday, November 26, 2010

Take a glimpse into one possible hypothetical future if the Libertarians take control of America. Imagine that in the name of "freedom", the Libertarians render the government impotent except where the powers of the State promote the interests of a hostile ruling class of Jews.

Imagine that the government refuses to regulate genetically modified organisms even if yet undeveloped GMO's emerge which are proven to cause massive increases in cancer and birth defects. Picture the hypothetical scenario where a Libertarian government declares that it is the "right" of every corporation to produce such organisms and introduce them into the environment and sell them as food, and states that it is the function of the marketplace, not the government, to stop the destruction of human life.

Next consider the possibility that the most wealthy persons in the World, all Jews, work in collusion to restrict what has become under the Libertarians a private currency cartel, choking off the economy by deflating that currency. A new world emerges where there are only immensely wealthy Jews, and horrifically impoverished Gentiles. In the name of "protecting free markets", the Libertarian government uses a State military to destroy all crops which carry the genes of the GMO's but which are not licensed by the corporations which engineered and patented those genes.

The Libertarian government declared that it is the "right" of the Jewish owned corporations to spray all fields with the pollen of their GMO's. Famine reigns and there are no longer non-GMO species.

The Jews demand that the starving Gentiles submit to sterilization before being allowed to purchase food from stores, all of which are then owned by Jews. Jews, who own all the farms, refuse to sell food to distributors who are not Jewish. It is their "right", their "freedom" to discriminate in this way, claim the Libertarians. The Jews demand that any Gentile who would buy food from them bear a tattoo on their forehead and submit to sterilization.

The Gentiles demand that the government take action to stop the Jews from genociding the Gentiles, but the Jews have bought every politician and the politicians claim that Gentiles are "free" to not buy food, but cannot "discriminate" against the Jews' "right" to monopolize the food business.

The Jews have bought up all the internet service providers and publishing houses. All public information is under their control and they censor it to only allow statements which deify Jews and condemn Gentiles. Jews are encouraged to act collectively because they are supposedly divine and their religion requires them to do so and it is their "religious freedom" to do so, while Gentiles are ridiculed and taught to hate and distrust one another. All talk of the negative effects of the new GMO's is censored, and those who speak it are blacklisted by the Jews and must starve to death.

As you can see, it is very easy for the Jews to steal your freedom and your life by tricking you into granting them the "freedom" to do so.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Louis Turner of Shock and Awe Graphics is a vicious liar. He deliberately misrepresents my critique and comment upon specific belief systems as if I were advocating those belief systems, though it is crystal clear in my statements that I am NOT. Turner attempts to misrepresent my commentary on Christian cannibalism as if it were an advocacy of it, and then Turner misrepresents Christianity as if it were Freemasonry. Turner also falsely claims that I am a "moon landings denier" when in fact I ridicule same. Turner libelously lies and claims that Christopher Bollyn's arrest instead involved me. etc. etc. etc. I guess in Louis' world of lies I am to answer for everyone named "Christopher".

Genesis 2:9; 3:22-24, iterates the Jewish mythology of the "tree of life" the consumption of which turns human souls into gods in that it renders life eternal:

"2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [***] 3:22 Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'-- 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 3:24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life."

Jesus, the supposed vine bearing the fruit of eternal life, is to Christians the tree of life, the consumption of which instills the soul of the Jewish god into man. The Gospel of St. John (as opposed to the doctrines of Freemasonry) states:

"48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Jews were repelled by Jesus' statements because he was asserting that he was god, that eating his flesh and drinking his blood would transfer the eternal life of god into man, and because man was forbidden to consume the tree of life. The Jewish Old Testatment tells the Jews that if they consume the blood of animals the soul of the animal will mingle with theirs and impart its traits upon them (see, for instance Sefer Ha-Chinuch, 148). Deuteronomy 12:16, 23-25, states:

"16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water. [***] 23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. 24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. 25 Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD."

Leviticus 17:10-14, states:

"10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."

Leviticus 7:26-27, states:

"26 Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings. 27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people."

Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus' instructions are to be taken literally, not allegorically, hence the eucharist. Mark 14:22-25, states:

"22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

Matthew 26:26-29, states:

"26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Luke 22:13-20, states:

"13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

Unable to find fault with anything I have said, and evidently aware that I can destroy his lies with the plain truth, Turner tries to link me to others with whom I have no connection at all, as if by having spoken to someone I mysteriously must be an advocate of that person's philosophies, even though Turner has no evidence to support his bizarre delusions. It is amazing that the liar Turner calls himself a "Christian" when he thinks and acts like a stereotypical Jew.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

In order to understand the mortal threat which Jewry pose to all life, you must realize that the Jews are determined to, and believe that they are destined to, destroy all life, including themselves. The Jews believe that only by destroying themselves and all life with themselves, can they obtain the new heavens and new earth, the new flesh for their dry genetically damaged inbred bones, which their genocidal god has promised them. The Jews desire to, and are, rendering life impossible on our planet.

This is why the Jews are poisoning the Earth with depleted uranium and other radioactive toxins. This is why the Jews are x-raying you at airports and introducing genetically modified poisonous organisms into the food chain, and encouraging you to obtain unnecessary CAT scans in hospitals, and to vaccinate yourselves and your children with toxic chemicals, etc. etc. etc. They want to destroy all life. They want to kill you on the most fundamental genetic level.

When a Jew wishes to curse another person, the Jew will often wish some especially painful form of cancer on that person. The Jews are deliberately collectively cursing humanity and all other life forms with cancer and genetic mutation.

The Jews have been planning this fatal fate for centuries. It is a prominent feature of Cabalah and Talmud, where the Jews forecast genetic mutation and environmental disaster, and rejoice in these pernicious prospects and pledge themselves to do everything in their power to bring them about.

You must cross the conceptual Rubicon and realize that you face an enemy which is presently poisoning you, and everyone else including themselves, to death. The Jews are the ultimate suicidal cult. They openly seek to destroy all life.

The Jews hold to the genocidal delusion that only by erasing life and the possibility of life can they remove the impurity of the Gentiles from existence. They believe that when they have destroyed this, our World, their father the Devil will make them a new world where they can live and reign without the presence of Goyim. The Jews view you as spiritual and physical pollution and feel it is their duty to physically and spiritually pollute you out of existence.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The entity calling itself "Karl Radl" attempts to justify its crypto-Jewish style of attacking others behind the cowardly mask of a pseudonym, as if a necessary precaution to avoid criticism from Jews. If it is true that the childish and obnoxious persons calling themselves "Lionaxe" and "Karl Radl" hide behind pseudonyms so that they can attack others behind a cowardly curtain of anonymity, in fact do so to hide from the Jews rather than to hide their Jewish affiliations and/or identities, then they should perhaps adopt more fitting appellations such as "Cowardly Lion" or "Puss N'Boots". In any event note that they can hit and run, and as they discredit themselves change pseudonyms and remain hidden. Vile, are they not?

Ironic, is it not, that "Lionaxe" won't tell me its name, yet attacks me. Not normal Gentile behavior, is it? Why does it aggrandize itself with such a title as "Lionaxe", implying fearlessness, in order to hide itself? Lions don't act that way, nor has any Gentile I have ever met. "Trotsky" acted that way, as did "Ataturk", as did the mythical "Esther". Interesting. . . . It is one of many obvious glaring contradictions in their behavior and habits, and it graphically demonstrates the stark difference between what they claim to be and what they in fact are.

The Jewish apologist[s] childishly calling itself "Lionaxe", after the form of a crypto-Jew, which entity spreads Jewish propaganda in forums opposed to undue Jewish influence, inspires me to write about an interesting phenomenon I have observed among such Jewish apologists. I note that it is still not a settled question whether this entity "Lionaxe" is a single person, a group of Jewish apologists, or an institution. Let the Jewish apologist[s] gain the courage of its [their] kosher convictions and speak its [their] real name[s] and so let the Devil appear by speaking its own name.

I will focus on one of "Lionaxe's" many sophistical tendencies, its fallacy of the reification of concepts and abstractions. I have noticed that Jewish apologists, whether of Jewish descent or not, are stereotypically Jewish in their mentality and behavior, far more so than the average Jew born of Jewish parents and grandparents. It seems as if Jewish apologists want to be quintessentially Jewish in every aspect of their being, no matter how repugnant that makes them to normal human beings.

Take for instance "Lionaxe's" adoption of Einstein's fallacies of reifying the abstractions of space and time, and presumably of the abstraction of space-time. Its acceptance of these fallacies leads "Lionaxe" to set forth the additional fallacies of the false premise and the non sequitur, that if Einstein somehow modified Poincare's ideas, then Einstein was entitled to repeat any and all aspects of Poincare's ideas without an attribution.

Einstein stated the same false premise and non sequitur,

"It appears to me that it is the nature of the business that what follows has already been partly solved by other authors. Despite that fact, since the issues of concern are here addressed from a new point of view, I believe I am entitled to leave out what would be for me a thoroughly pedantic survey of the literature, all the more so because it is hoped that these gaps will yet be filled by other authors, as has already happened with my first work on the principle of relativity through the kind efforts of Mr. Planck and Mr. Kaufmann."--A. Einstein, "Ueber die vom Relativitaetsprinzip gefordterte Traegheit der Energie", Annalen der Physik, Series 4, Volume 23, (1907), pp. 371-384, at 373.

The false premise is that Einstein added a novel perspective vastly different from his predecessors. The non sequitur is that this false premise, even were it instead true, granted Einstein license to disregard his responsibility to name those whose work he repeated.

Einstein aggrandized himself, like "Lionaxe", and personally attacked those who disagreed with him, like "Lionaxe". "Lionaxe" is of a very similar personality type to its hero Einstein, the "Jewish saint".

The Cabalistic Jew and Jewish apologist Isaac Newton thought and acted in the same manner. He, too, was guilty of the fallacy of the reification of abstractions. He, too, insulted those who disagreed with him as a method of argument. He, too, thought it unnecessary to cite the work of others which he repeated as if novel work of his own.

It is interesting that each of these persons and/or groups are drawn to the mythologies of absolutes, be it the reification of non-existent "space", "time", "inertial reference systems", and/or in the case of Einstein and "Lionaxe" of non-existent "space-time" and the hypothesis of the absolute velocity of light. It appears that those who are Jewish by choice are of a personality type that tends to be ridiculously conceited, unfair, hyperaggressive and sophistical, clinging to absolutist fallacies of the reification of concepts, abstractions and meaningless mathematical symbols.

The Jewish apologists who claim to be Christians also tend to be dogmatic in a similar fashion. They are pantheistic, polytheistic, intolerant, obscenely conceited and blind to alternative points of view. They reify political perspectives to the point of deifying them.

There is something to this tendency of those who promote Jewish interests to be of a specific personality profile. It is a type which is magnetically drawn to make of itself the hideous stereotypical Jew and one which believes its mental abstractions and metaphysical delusions are instead physical reality, and one which demands that all others submit to its will to substitute its mythologies for the physical universe in spite of the obvious facts.

In a childish personal attack, the Jewish apologist calling itself "Karl Radl" now acknowledges that "Karl Radl" is not its real name and attacks me for not recognizing that it and its childish twin "Lionaxe" are not one in the same pseudonym apologizing for the Jews, but are in fact two distinct Jewish apologists hiding behind pseudonyms. Oh my, how ungracious of me to not recognize that their pseudonymous were not representative of the same Jewish apologist, but two; though such was by no means clear in their statements where they do not identify themselves by their real names, instead opting to hide behind juvenile pseudonyms. "Karl Radl" falsely dubs one lost in the undecipherable maze of their childish games, a liar. Maybe if it told the truth, starting with its real name, it would be able to recognize it.

"Lionaxe" at length fails to demonstrate that Poincare's theories violate the PoR, but instead merely points out what I have already said, that Poincare had a broader theory than Einstein, in that Poincare tried to theorize dynamic causes for the measurement effects he speculated would occur in the thought experiments he stated. The addition of an ether makes Poincare's theory broader than Einstein's, not different in its PoR.

Space and time are abstractions in the mind of man. Scientists measure with real objects, not abstractions, a distinction which eludes "Lionaxe".

Despite all its desperate whining and whimpering, "Lionaxe" fails to demonstrate any privilege in its allegations that Poincare's theory of an ether constitutes a preferred inertial frame of reference. "Lionaxe" instead postulates a redundancy that the addition of an ether constitutes an addition of an ether. "Lionaxe" fails to prove how the existence of the fixed stars likewise constitutes a "privilege". Such is the nature of "Lionaxe's" sophistry: hide from the facts, defame and change the subject.

"Lionaxe" fails to understand that no laboratory in nature obeys Newton's laws of motion, there are no inertial systems in nature. A sincere reader would clearly understand that I was correctly pointing out that Newton's second law has never been observed to hold in nature, and, therefore, there is no measurable system of coordinates which obey it. Uniform inertial motion has never been observed to exist in nature. It is an a priori metaphysical delusion, not an observable system in nature.

Since this is true, Poincare was obliged to refer his readers to the fixed stars or a hypothetical ether at rest with respect to itself in order to create a system of coordinates with which to define hypothetical inertial motion relative to this system, so as to create an operational definition for time and space measurement, and a system of coordinates in which a system of laws are obeyed in the thought experiments which Einstein would later plagiarize. Einstein made the same pronouncement when he referred to the "resting system" and systems in a "definite state of motion" relative to it, as I have proven in my book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein. In addition to the pages I have already cited, I would add Einstein's declaration (quoted on page 1837) that Einstein believed that there are inertial systems of coordinates in a definite state of motion, so we must ask relative to what are they in motion, and the answer Einstein gives is relative to the system of coordinates of the vacuum which Einstein equates to Lorentz' ether. "Lionaxe" has not rebutted any of the facts I have presented, but instead changes the subject to Einstein's treatment of kinematics. Einstein's 1905 PoR relies upon the same assumption of "fixed" coordinates and coordinates in uniform motion relative to those coordinates that Poincare had stated before him. Einstein calls the system of the fixed stars the "resting system" and the system of coordinates of the vacuum (singular, not plural). "Lionaxe", despite its best and slimiest insulting attempts, cannot weasel or snake its way out of that historical fact.

If "Lionaxe" would dub Poincare's fixed system a "privileged" inertial reference frame, then in order to be consistent, "Lionaxe" must state the same about Einstein's theory of 1905. Though "Lionaxe" asserts without proof that Poincare believed in absolute motion, his assertions are false, as is well known.

"Lionaxe" is ignorant of the fact that Einstein's assertion of the source independence of light speed in the "system of coordinates of the vacuum" (singular, not plural), is an ethereal proposition and Einstein merely calls the ether a system of coordinates of the vacuum, as opposed to systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion relative to the vacuum.

"Lionaxe" again misses the opportunity to correct itself and admit that I stated that Poincare was first between Poincare and Einstein to state the PoR and that many others iterated it before Poincare, in contradiction to "Lionaxe's" false assertions. The remainder of "Lionaxe's" sophistry leads nowhere and signifies nothing and is therefore not worthy of a response.

Both Jewish apologists "Karl Radl"and "Lionaxe" could not refrain from ad hominem attack and again wasted much of my valuable time sorting through their snide and inappropriate drivel to at arrive at some semblance of an attempted point. Try to be a bit more concise in your sophistry, "Karl Radl" and "Lionaxe", if only as a matter of courtesy.

By the way, do you childish clowns dress up in superhero costumes and suck lollipops when you hide behind your pseudonyms and write your self aggrandizing garbage on the internet intended to persuade those opposed to Jewry to adopt pro-Jewish positions? Do you exchange Hanukkah gifts, little ray guns and Nazi badges, perhaps?

Two more obvious Kosher Klowns than "Lionaxe" and "Karl Radl" would be difficult to imagine, let alone find.

Both Prof. Winterberg and Prof. Logunov's coauthor have made statements to me which differ from their published accounts of the priority disputes regarding Hilbert, Poincare and Einstein. Ask them to speak for themselves. I know what they say in private. If they wish to repeat it in public, then let them.

It is clear that Louis Turner fabricated his lies about me in his own head and cannot offer a single fact to support his lies. He is a deceitful smearmonger. He acts like a stereotypical Jew and has shone no remorse whatsoever for lying about me, nor has he made any attempt to mitigate the damage he has deliberately and with malice done to me. Yet Turner would call himself a "Christian".

Louis Turner imprecisely defines "Socialism" as the Soviet Union and the Obama administration; and mistakenly asserts that such a definition is sufficient for the purposes of labeling those Turner recklessly attacks as if "Socialists". I have repeatedly condemned the Soviet Union and the Bolshevism that produced it. I have also condemned Obama and his policies and his government. This proves that by Turner's definitions I am opposed to socialism, yet Louis Turner lies and calls me a "Socialist" by this, his own, definition. Turner writes,

"While 'socialism' today has many meanings that obscure its nature, most of US old timers remember the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics very well and do not require anybody to redefine what socialism is. And with Obama in office, do we really need to define what socialism is? If we can’t see it now, then there is no hope left except for change – chump change!"

Louis Turner asserts that the Jews do not suck on the circumcised penises of their infants to draw blood to drink. Turner falsely asserts that I, "'imply' that they perform 'fellatio' on each other during Circumcision[.]" I never implied any such thing, but instead provided a verifiable citation to the Jews' religious practice of "metzitzah b'peh". Turner deceptively wrote, grossly misrepresenting my statements,

"So Christopher Jon Bjerknes is NOT a socialist nor is a member of the Aryan Nations eh? And you call me a liar while you bash Jews and 'imply' that they perform 'fellatio' on each other during Circumcision? You sick person! This guy makes it so easy for me its not even funny."

The sexual content of Turner's statements are the products of his mind, not mine, and it is false and libelous for him to attribute his thoughts to me.

Turner also misquotes me by failing to indicating breaks and omissions in the text. He is reckless in his manner of quotation.

Contrary to Turner's thoughts and Turner's perverse and deliberate misrepresentation of my statements, I wrote,

"The Jews believe they can obtain eternal life through the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. When performing circumcision, the mohel sucks blood from the infant child's penis and mixes it with wine which the Jews drink. Jews are strictly forbidden to drink the blood of animals because they believe that the blood carries with it the soul and that drinking animal blood turns the human being into an animal.

The Jews drink their own blood to obtain eternal life, believing that they are themselves god and that by drinking their own blood they obtain eternal life. This is outlined in the Babylonian Talmud in the Tractate Shabbath folio 133. For the Jew, the infant's penis is the Tree of Life."

In my article where I pointed out this Jewish practice, I gave a precise citation to the Jewish religious text which describes and mandates this practice. My statements are demonstrably factually correct. The citation I gave is, "the Babylonian Talmud in the Tractate Shabbath folio 133." This folio is available online from the Soncino translation:

The Talmud states in the relevant part, and I have copied this from the published hard copy of the book,

"MISHNAH. We perform all the requirements of circumcision on the sabbath. we circumcise, uncover [the corona], suck [the wound], and place a compress and cummin upon it. if one did not crush [the cummin] on the eve of the sabbath, he must chew [it] with his teeth and apply [it to the wound]; if he did not beat up wine and oil on the eve of the sabbath, each must be applied separately. we may not make a haluk for it in the first place, but must wrap a rag about it. if this was not prepared from the eve of the sabbath, one winds it about his finger and brings it, and even through another courtyard."--I. Epstein, Editor, "Shabbath", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 8, Part 2, The Soncino Press, (1938), pp. 666-669, at 668-669.

and,

"we suck out, etc. R. Papa said: If a surgeon does not suck [the wound], it is dangerous and he is dismissed. It is obvious? Since we desecrate the Sabbath for it, it is dangerous?—You might say that this blood is stored up, therefore he informs us that it is the result of a wound, and it is like a bandage and cummin: just as when one does not apply a bandage and cummin there is danger, so here too if one does not do it there is danger."--I. Epstein, Editor, "Shabbath", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 8, Part 2, The Soncino Press, (1938), pp. 666-669, at 668-669.

The Jewish religious practice of sucking an infant's penis so as to draw blood to be drunk by Jews is called "metzitzah b'peh". The Jewish Encyclopedia states in its article "Circumcision", under the subsection "Mezizah",

"Mezizah: By this is meant the sucking of the blood from the wound. The mohel takes some wine in his mouth and applies his lips to the part involved in the operation, and exerts suction, after which he expels the mixture of wine and blood into a receptacle (see Fig. 4, below) provided for the purpose. This procedure is repeated several times, and completes the operation, except as to the control of the bleeding and the dressing of the wound.""Circumcision", The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Funk and Wagnells Company, New York, London, (1903), pp. 92-102, at 99.

The Jewish practice of "metzitzah b'peh" has resulted in the spread of herpes and has caused the deaths of infants. See, for example:

Turner falsely claims that I "promote" Edgar J. Steele and provides as sole support the fact that I referred my readers to Cyndi Steele's appeal for help after someone attempted to murder her. In fact, I noted that Steele's wife, the victim of attempted murder, was appealing for help and in no way promoted Edgar J. Steele. I made no brief for Edgar Steele. I will say that Edgar Steele is a lawyer and all people are entitled to legal defense. It is his profession to provide that defense. I do not answer for his choices in his clients, but I will say that being a lawyer for an organization is not equivalent to being a member of that organization, just as a lawyer defending a person accused of committing a crime is not rendered a criminal by providing a due defense to the accused. If Turner has issues with Edgar J. Steele, he should take them up with him. I have no connection to Edgar J. Steele whatsoever.

Turner confounds the Aryan Brotherhood with the Aryan Nations. Turner's assertions are factually incorrect and have nothing whatsoever to do with me. I have never had any connection to the Aryan Nations or the Aryan Brotherhood whatsoever. I condemn both organizations. Louis Turner has no facts to support his lies, but instead conjures up innuendo based on false premises to perpetuate his lies.

Turner falsely claims that I have stated that he, Turner, is Jewish. I instead stated that he acts like a stereotypical Jew. Not all Jews act in this way, and not everyone who acts in this way is Jewish. But, alas, the facts appear to be unimportant to Turner as he fabricates his strawmen.

Turner then goes on to attack Rev. Ted Pike in order to attack me by way of innuendo. I am not a spokesman for Ted Pike and disagree with many of the things he has said, though I do not endorse Turner's accounts of the man and instead disagree with them. I find Rev. Ted Pike's religious views of blacks false and repugnant, and I know that the ultimate source of Pike's Protestant views regarding blacks is the Babylonian Talmud. The racist Jewish (as opposed to merely "Zionist") Talmud states in the Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 70a,

"'Ubar the Galilean gave the following exposition: The letter waw [and] occurs thirteen times in the passage dealing with wine: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. [With respect to the last verse] Rab and Samuel [differ,] one maintaining that he castrated him, whilst the other says that he sexually abused him. He who maintains that he castrated him, [reasons thus;] Since he cursed him by his fourth son, he must have injured him with respect to a fourth son. But he who says that he sexually abused him, draws an analogy between ‘and he saw' written twice. Here it is written, And Ham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father; whilst elsewhere it is written, And when Shechem the son of Hamor saw her [he took her and lay with her and defiled here]. Now, on the view that he emasculated him, it is right that he cursed him by his fourth son; but on the view that he abused him, why did he curse his fourth son: he should have cursed him himself?—Both indignities were perpetrated."--I. Epstein, Editor, Sanhedrin 70a, The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 28 (Sanhedrin II), The Soncino Press, (1935), pp. 477-478.

" Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished—the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mates mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin. [Footnote: I.e., from him descended Cush (the negro) who is black-skinned.]"--I. Epstein, Editor, Sanhedrin 108b, The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 28 (Sanhedrin II), The Soncino Press, (1935), p. 745.

I find Pike's support of these Jewish ideas counter-productive to his stated aims. I also find Pike's support of certain political candidates counter-productive to his stated aims. That said, Rev. Ted Pike has preserved our right of free speech, revealed much about the Talmud and Cabalah and exposed Christian Zionism as a fraud, among many other valuable contributions he has made at great expense to himself and his family. I wish that he could see that the Old Testament is in places worse than the Talmud. When attributing views to me, Turner should limit himself to my views and cease to misrepresent me as if someone else so that Turner can raise a strawman to knock down.

Turner tries to misrepresent me as if I were a Freemason, which I am NOT. I have never been, am NOT and would never become a Freemason. Contrary to Turner's unsupported assertions, I have written a book devoted to exposing one of Freemasonry's most vile crimes, The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians in which I expose the Freemasonic affiliations of the perpetrators of that crime against the human race, with verifiable facts. I have also exposed Trotsky and Lenin's connections to Freemasonry and the role of Freemasonry in the murderous French Revolution. Turner may not like this because I point out that the pernicious aspects of Freemasonry, its Zionism, call for World government, building a new Temple of Solomon, revolution, genocide, etc. etc. etc. are Jewish in origin, are perpetrated by Jews and serve Jewish interests, and are meant to fulfil Jewish messianic prophecy.

Instead of lying about my views and putting his thoughts as if in my head, Turner should instead ask me to state my views and if he seeks clarification then he should ask for it, instead of lying and fabricating defamatory falsehoods and innuendoes.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Jesus Christ said of the Jews, in the Gospel of St. John, chapter 8, verses 44-46,

"8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? "

"Looks like I angered Christopher Jon Bjerknes in exposing his Aryan ideals. [***] So I guess that's why you got out of the Brotherhood eh? Because they are 'infested with Federal agents?'"

The deliberate and libelous liar Louis Turner does not, and cannot have, any factual basis for his deliberate lies, because none can exist. I have never been, am not, and would never be a member of the Aryan Brotherhod, as I have already made clear to the deliberate liar Louis Turner. Turner manufactured his shameful lies from his own imagination with no basis in fact; and instead of correcting his deliberate lies when served notice of their complete falsehood and defamatory nature, Turner repeats his lies without any regard for the truth or the harm he deliberately does to others.

Louis Turner of Shock and Awe Graphics is a deliberate and libelous liar and cannot substantiate his false and defamatory statements with any facts.

Though the fanatical Turner calls me "satanic", it is Louis Turner who is the proven liar and smearmonger.

Louis Turner falsely claims that I am a "Socialist" without any factual basis. When confronted with his falsehoods and asked for a definition of his use of the term, Turner responds with the reckless and evasive statement,

"While he attempts to turn the heat up by luring me to 'define' what Socialism is, he hopes the conversation will take another turn to where he can further define his cause."

Though asked, Turner does not provide a definition. Louis Turner has deliberately and falsely tried to attach a label to my name, one which he refuses to define, but which he asserts is derogatory. In his fanatical mind, Turner justifies his refusal to meet his moral and ethical obligations to support his accusations with facts and definitions, by irrationally claiming that because I state that, and have a long published record of stating that, I dislike Adolf Hitler and am not a Socialist, I must therefore adore Hitler and be a Socialist. Hitler was a murderous monster whom I despise. I am not a Socialist and do not want government to run business.

Turner is an unrepentant and deliberate liar. When I asked him for the basis of his false and defamatory statements, he refused to provide any, and accuses me of trying to change the subject merely because I defend myself with the truth from Louis Turner's knowing lies.

Though Turner presents himself as a Christian, he acts like a stereotypical Jew. Turner lies without any regard for the harm he does innocent people with his deliberate lies. The graphic above Turner's article mocks the last supper.

Turner condemns some of my articles without challenging them based on facts and logic. He nowhere disproves a single statement I have made, but instead Turner spews out fanatical and meaningless drivel and lies and libels without any regard for the truth.